What’s behind the ‘new anti-Semitism’?

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by DRoseDARs


And what colors would those be?

Islamic green
like the flag of mauritania

[DRoseDARs]

Mauritania: Because it gets Tassi all hot and bothered

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
Of course, my dear Spiffie, it will not be said openly. That would not make sense.

So many people say it already. Why wouldn't this one?

WTF is wrong and antisemitic in claiming jewish lobby could influence american politics? Every lobby does.
I think american interests wouldn't be that much hurt if Slovakia annexed Poland. Yet, I am pretty sure care for polish voters would make american politicians oppose it, even if it had nothing to do with interest of America itself. People of german and irish descent were against american involvement on entente side in ww1 I've read... Jews are no different than any other nation - they will support each other.

The problem isn't so much with the existence of the Jewish lobby (AFAIK, its existence is acknowledged by everybody in the US - unlike in France, where an old former PM got lambasted a few days ago for expressing his annoyance at the "Jewish Lobby").
The problem is with thinking they have an immense power, and can pull strings nobody else can. The the Jews are the actual bosses behind US policy. There's a world of difference between acknowledging an influent lobby, and thinking of Jews as a puppetteer.

The author finds it wrong to deny special status of Israel based on Holocaust. That is, actually, racist.

And this is something I don't care about, in the article. The author's main point is about defining the new forms of antisemitism in the west. Hos opinion of Israel, of Israel's actions, of Israel's legitimacy, are of no interest to me, and I don't think they are of interest to his point.

[Barnabas]

By the way

is jew pronounced the same as shoe?

[Heresson]

I used to respect you

You don't have to respect ME. Respect my authoritah!

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
re: first quote - Properly displaying and explaining common views in the Jewish community does not equal endorsing it. the article's bottom line is the opposite of that.

I believe that while openly disagreeing with that notion, he in fact shares it to some extent.

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

this:

Increasingly, Israel is the biggest threat to world peace and stability.

‘If only it would go away, then we would have a chance for peace in the Middle East’

is very true

Corrected

and you have yourself proved this in another thread, where in a biased, unsupported and seemingly uneducated suggestion, where by the existance of Israel is the main cause / contributor to the rise of fundamentalist militarist islam. To which I posted what I think is a good rebuttal, and you have avoided substantiating or proving your claim.

That's your personal, biased opinion
Nemo iudex idoneus in propria causa, don't You know?

The author finds it wrong to deny special status of Israel based on Holocaust. That is, actually, racist.

No he doesn't.
He describes Israel's claim of a special status based on the holocaust - nowhere does he endorse the idea.

Hm, perhaps You are right. I've read this part again and got to the point I may have misinterpreted his words.
But he writes:

Others simply resent Israel’s claims to special status on the basis of its links with the Holocaust – which is why there is a growing trend to turn the moral power of the Holocaust against Israel.

I don't think he thinks that accusing Israel of being the IVth Reich is something good. Therefore, if he says that someone denies this status, and that leads to such accusations, he seems to be criticising denying this status (it doesn't necessarily mean that, and that was my mistake).
And I find it wrong, because denying this status doesn't have to lead to such opinions (that Israel is teh new nazi war machine). It doesn't in my case.
Israel does a lot of horrible things, but it is no-where near Hitler and such (general) comparisons are not appropriate.

You've clearly skimmed this article with a very impartial tone set in place.

That's partly true , but still, this article is biased and pro-israeli.

Originally posted by Spiffor

So many people say it already. Why wouldn't this one?

Because he's more intelligent or is deceiving himself?

The problem isn't so much with the existence of the Jewish lobby (AFAIK, its existence is acknowledged by everybody in the US - unlike in France, where an old former PM got lambasted a few days ago for expressing his annoyance at the "Jewish Lobby").

I remember opinions from USA denying its existance. Also, in Poland, this article was dismissed without discussion or analysis on the basis that if someone speaks about a jewish lobby, he can't be treaten seriously.

The problem is with thinking they have an immense power, and can pull strings nobody else can. The the Jews are the actual bosses behind US policy. There's a world of difference between acknowledging an influent lobby, and thinking of Jews as a puppetteer.

When it comes to ME politics, I don't see a way american policies could have been more pro-israeli, contrary to the interest of America or promotion of democracy, as the recent war in Lebanon has shown.
I don't think pro-israeli lobby cares for the other aspects of american foreign affairs. It's reached its limited goal - shaping american policy when it comes to ME.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
By the way

is jew pronounced the same as shoe?

Yes. Is that a poem in the making?

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Heresson

I remember opinions from USA denying its existance. Also, in Poland, this article was dismissed without discussion or analysis on the basis that if someone speaks about a jewish lobby, he can't be treaten seriously.

Which article is that?

[Heresson]

Walt's and Maersheimer's

[Spiffor]

When it comes to ME politics, I don't see a way american policies could have been more pro-israeli, contrary to the interest of America or promotion of democracy, as the recent war in Lebanon has shown.

You're not very imaginative.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Heresson
Walt's and Maersheimer's

I don't recognize the logins? Recent name changes? It would be cool if you provided a link?

[Barnabas]

You can read all of it here, it was big news in 2006, the 2 are professors from Harvard, they wrote a paper about the Israeli lobby,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Israel_Lobby_and_U.S._Foreign_Policy

[Berzerker]

Given the fact most semites are Arabs, isn't it anti-semitic to exclude all these people from their identity?

[Dinner]

That's a tired old argument which has been thoroughly thrashed in the past. In the English language anti-semite or anti-semitic means being biased or hateful towards Jews. Don't like the term? Tough, that's the proper use in the English language.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Given the fact most semites are Arabs, isn't it anti-semitic to exclude all these people from their identity?

Go away.

[Berzerker]

That's a tired old argument which has been thoroughly thrashed in the past. In the English language anti-semite or anti-semitic means being biased or hateful towards Jews. Don't like the term? Tough, that's the proper use in the English language.

Well now, all that doesn't really address the fact that millions of people who ARE Semites regardless of your definition are excluded from the semitic identity, people who ironically would be anti-semites if they didn't like Jews by your logic. It dont matter what we call them, and contrary to your definition semite refers to a large group of Near Eastern peoples, not just Jews.

Semite - 1. a member of any of various ancient and modern peoples originating in southwestern Asia, including the Akkadians, Canaanites, Phoenicians, Hebrews, and Arabs.
2. a Jew.
3. a member of any of the peoples descended from Shem, the eldest son of Noah.